Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider her mental health when it required her to cut back trees which it said were obscuring traffic lights. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council harassed and victimised her when she was mentally unwell. She wants it to be sympathetic to the needs of the elderly, the vulnerable and those suffering from mental illness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council’s responses to her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says a Council officer visited her home unannounced. He told her he had received a report that her trees were obscuring traffic lights next to her home. She says that after inspecting the trees, the officer agreed the traffic lights were not obscured.
5. Mrs X told the officer that she was waiting for her gardeners to trim the trees anyway. He agreed not to take the matter further.
6. Mrs X says she then received 3 letters from the Council saying her trees were obscuring the traffic lights and she must have them cut back. She says she was mentally unwell at this time and felt the Council was putting too much pressure on her, worsening her illness. With the help of her psychiatric nurse and care co-ordinator, she complained to the Council.
7. The Council says its’ officer recalls visiting Mrs X in early October. As he saw her outside, he approached her and explained he had been told the traffic lights were obscured and could she arrange to cut the trees back. He noted that Mrs X became distressed, so he left. A short time later the Council wrote to Mrs X asking her to have the work carried out within a month.
8. Mrs X contacted the Council. She explained her situation and asked for a specification of the work needed. The Council says the officer she spoke to offered to extend the timescale for the work if she needed this.
9. Mrs X did not ask for an extension She says her care co-ordinator contacted the Council, however it has no record of this.
10. The Council apologised to Mrs X if she felt harassed or victimised and assured her this was not its’ intention. It had just responded to a report from Transport for Greater Manchester that her trees were obscuring the traffic lights.
11. It has also advised it has no record of correspondence from her care co-ordinator. And that it does not have a specific policy for dealing with mentally ill or vulnerable people. But it is aware of its responsibilities under the Equalities Act and will make reasonable adjustments for those who require them.
12. I understand Mrs X found the matter distressing and that it aggravated her illness. However, the Council has apologised for her feeling harassed. I have seen no evidence that she was being victimised. And the Council is aware of its duties under the Equalities Act. Given this, I consider it unlikely that an investigation would add to that already carried out by the Council. Nor would it lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. And it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman